Michelle Fabio
, ContributorI write about when media/entertainment and the law collide.Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images

If you’ve been waiting to get your hands on late rapper Tupac Shakur’s 1995 letter to Madonna, you’re in luck, because a Manhattan judge has ruled that an auction for it can move forward.

Madonna sued her longtime friend and auctioneer Darlene Lutz to halt the sale, which had been stopped temporarily pending the outcome of the matter.

In addition to Tupac’s two-and-a-quarter-page, handwritten letter from prison explaining that he had broken up with Madonna because she was white, the "highly personal items" in dispute included a brush with Madonna’s hair still entwined in it and a pair of her panties. Yes, these are perfect tabloid fodder, but the reasoning behind Judge Gerald Lebovits’ decision couldn't be more boring, legally: the statute of limitations had run out long ago.

Madonna expressed herself and her belief that the whole ordeal was an invasion of her privacy, even citing potential collection of her genetic material.

“I understand that my DNA could be extracted from a piece of my hair,” the complaint stated. “It is outrageous and grossly offensive that my DNA could be auctioned for sale to the general public.”

The judge didn't get into the groove of that argument, however, concluding that Madonna's complaint was time-barred.

Statute of *Yawn* Limitations

Under New York law, Madonna had three years from the time the items were stolen to file suit for their recovery. Unfortunately for her, the items had been missing since she left Miami in 2004, putting her claim well outside the three-year window.

“Mere ignorance or lack of discovery of the wrong is not sufficient to toll the statute,” Lebovits wrote.

In other words, whether Madonna knew the items were missing or stolen at that time doesn’t matter regarding when the statute of limitations started running.

If you’re suddenly wondering about things missing around your house and whether you still have time to sue to get them back, you’ll have to check your own state’s statute of limitations regarding recovery of stolen personal property; they do vary.

Moreover, some states aren’t as strict as New York regarding when the statute starts running. In Virginia, for example, the statute may be tolled if the defendant “intentionally misleads” a plaintiff who doesn’t know the property is missing, but only so long as the plaintiff should have reasonably discovered the theft and not if the plaintiff has failed to make a “reasonable inquiry.”

Besides the statute of limitations issue in Madonna’s case, Lebovits also noted that in 2004, Madonna had signed an agreement releasing Lutz from “any and all future claims” when the two were in a tussle over some artwork, which would have also sunk her lawsuit.

Lutz reportedly stayed in Madonna’s homes with some frequency when the singer wasn’t around, but the pair's friendship was pushed over the borderline because of the settlement.

Oh, and about Tupac's letter? Save your pennies (and hundreds) if you want a shot at winning it at auction. Before the legal wrangling began, the opening bid for the letter was $100,000; it was expected to fetch around $400,000 according to legal filings in the case.